Sujet : Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 13. Aug 2024, 21:43:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9gghg$2cth$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD by
HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
Which it doesn't fulfill.
*I break this down into smaller steps here*
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
simulation.
Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs.
Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs, thus
the behavior of non-inputs is outside of their domain.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer